"The Miracle of Mpls", Local Responses & Racial Disparities

[Nick]

Twincitizen's original point reminded me a lot of what I thought reading various hot takes and responses to that Jonathan Chait op-ed last month. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his point that political correctness is doing x, y, and z to the country, I think it's pretty hard to disagree that the language of the left in at least the past couple of years isn't particularly inviting. The immediate rush to be most outraged on a given issue wears you out quickly. Which sucks, because there are absolutely people who are eager to tell people that they shouldn't be outraged in situations where they have every right to be outraged. Or maybe all groups have always had this issue and I've only had Twitter for six months.

In any case, in all but a few situations, it's almost entirely white people who live similar lives in the same part of the city arguing over what's best for black people who live very different lives on the other side of the city, which has always seemed odd to me. Discussion about any of these complex issues has felt like more of a merit badge for the people discussing them than anything else.

[Didier]

While there is obviously merit and truth to saying "Minneapolis is a great city for white people, but much less so for people of color", due to some pretty glaring racial disparities, at some point the constant race angle is really going to start turning off some allies. Even as a youngish urban person who considers himself to be pretty far left politically, the whole white guilt angle barely plays for me. Do the folks who bang that drum and write these types of pieces ever stop to think how this message is received in the blueish-purplish (barely left-of-center) suburbs which keep Minnesota in DFL-control? I dunno.

This resonates with me a lot. A girl I went to high school with has become pretty involved with Black Lives Matter, and everything she posts on Facebook makes me feel less sympathetic to her cause. I just skimmed through and picked out one post that gives an idea of the general tone.

White people, nobody has to justify ANYTHING they're doing in Ferguson to you. Your people burned two cities over the World Series and A PUMPKIN FESTIVAL. Black people protested PEACEFULLY for THREE MONTHS through sweltering heat, tear gas, rubber bullets, rain, freezing cold, and snow over THEIR MURDERED CHILD. Your people are so violent in so many ways but you insist it's not you. WOW.

For some reason the fact that she makes a habit of addressing her posts to "white people" bothers me. There are also several posts with the general message of "white people should stop protesting for black issues." Like twincitizen, I'm a youngish urban person who considers himself to be pretty far left politically, and I want to be sympathetic to the cause, but I feel like this girl's whole intent is to alienate people. It's almost completely opposite of the historically successful gay marriage amendment campaign.

And maybe it shouldn't matter, but the person posting these is Persian, grew up in a very upper middle class suburb, attended one of the best public schools in the state and generally had a very privileged upbringing. So while I don't at all begrudge her for being very active in the cause, I can't help but begrudge the fact that her whole approach feels like an attack on me — as if I'm so different from her and so similar to the racist white people who are against her cause.

[EOst]

Just sayin', Didier, the fact that she had some privilege (family wealth) doesn't mean she hasn't suffered from other forms of discrimination. She's still a (Muslim?) woman of color.

Every cause that's worth anything is going to have people with unappetizing rhetoric; there's a Malcolm X for every MLK. They serve different purposes.

[Didier]

I wasn't trying to suggest that she's never suffered discrimination. My point is that I understand my white privilege but am detached from the everyday realities on the other side. She makes me less likely to be active, so instead I just remain passively sympathetic. If she makes me feel that way, how can she possibly win over society as a whole?

[xandrex]

Twincitizen's original point reminded me a lot of what I thought reading various hot takes and responses to that Jonathan Chait op-ed last month. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his point that political correctness is doing x, y, and z to the country, I think it's pretty hard to disagree that the language of the left in at least the past couple of years isn't particularly inviting. The immediate rush to be most outraged on a given issue wears you out quickly.

Chait's article resonates a lot. It's got a lot of flak, but I think he has a pretty valid point that I kinda mentioned in my previous post: Outrage to score points becomes the most important part of many white, middle-class, self-proclaimed "social justice warriors." Shaming others into submission is more important to these people than actually tackling the issue. Disagree with them on even the slightest bit of their argument or how it's presented? Well you're a ciswhitemale who just hates women/POC/other group who can't possibly make and argument...and told not to tone police.

Like Didier, I have a Facebook friend--who I'm never quite sure why I keep around--who has taken it as her task to only post articles related to race/class/sexual identity issues. I suppose it's refreshing that she isn't whining about relationship issues, but it's exhausting to even read her statuses/link shares because they're filled with a "take my point of view or else" attitude. In one example, she got into a heated debate with someone who commented simply to disagree with a minor quibble about a race article she posted and perhaps didn't have a 100 percent grasp on social justice issues (strangely, she was arguing with a POC, which seems at odds with her beliefs). Her response:

I didn't tell you anything you had to listen to, and reading what you did on my own Facebook wall was your choice. It was also your choice to comment. Don't come at me demanding that I educate you on this. Frankly I'm uninterested in anything you have to say...

That raises the question: Who is she posting these for? If not to educate, it would seem to be for her own smug satisfaction to get kudos from similarly liberal arts-educated folks in their 20s, with the added bonus of smearing the person who jumped in with an alternative take in front of said friends.

In other words, her shitty attitude makes it that much harder to make meaningful change for the groups she claims to care about. And everyone else who sees it gets turned off to helping, further isolating us all.

[Nick]

Who [are they saying this] for?

Don't want to get into the weeds, but this is my constant inner monologue about probably half of the things I hear or read in any context as an adult, whether it's in meetings at work or in emails or in streets.mn posts or Tweets or anything.

[min-chi-cbus]

That seems like a good point about the Somali refugee population -- a connection I've never managed to make before.

Ditto. I would like to see some numbers, though, because I have a hard time believing that the vast majority of the increase in the black population from Somali immigrants. It's significant, certainly but I would like to know exactly how much. How do Somalis self-identify on census forms?

It's not. But the remainder is largely based from inner-city poor Midwestern areas, like Milwaukee, Chicago, Flint, East STL, Gary and Detroit (among others). The Twin Cities is seemingly like a refuge for poor urban black Americans from the Midwest who don't want to completely uproot someplace a thousand miles from home, and settle for the Twin Cities. These people, like immigrants, are among the poorest of the poor. It doesn't hurt that the Twin Cities have a relatively generous welfare system, but that's definitely not the whole story, not based on what I've heard (first and second hand accounts).

[min-chi-cbus]

I had a lengthy diatribe of a reply about "white privilege", but thought better of it. I'll summarize instead: I don't believe in "white privilege" anymore than I believe in entitlement for minorities. In both cases they are extreme ends of a racial stereotypical spectrum, and I just don't see real life playing out in either of these extreme viewpoints for most people. As per usual, it's usually somewhere in the middle. I also am a huge believer that every one of us is born pure of hate, so much of one's viewpoint on the subject is definitely shaped by his/her own life experiences that do not always mirror the average American's. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to defining people or their actions.

For example, Ian Leibowicz (my stereotypical name for a white guy) of Minnetonka may experience little "white privilege", but he is white and has "everything going for himself" if you listen to what people say about him/his type, but the reality is completely different from the stereotype/typecast, and he struggles in life. Similarly, DeMarcus Jones (my stereotypical name for a black guy) from north Minneapolis may be taught to be a mad black man who's struggled his whole life, but gosh darn it he's actually kind of happy with his life, and doesn't let preconceived notions dictate his life or his future, and as a result he's relatively contempt with things.

DeMarcus and Ian have one thing in common, in that they don't perpetuate the stereotypical racial and socioeconomic versions of themselves. I.e. if you follow the herd you may not stand out but you may ultimately get slaughtered, but nobody is forcing you to be one with the herd -- that's something you decide for yourself.

[David Greene]

[The best way to do that, as far as I see it, is for the Met Council to actually have a stronger presence in local zoning by forcing them to allow denser/different housing types (especially redevelopment)

This all sounds great but how does it work in practice? Is the density Minneapolis is gaining fit this idea? If so, why haven't we seen affordable units as a result? If not, what do we need to do differently?

[David Greene]

For example, Ian Leibowicz (my stereotypical name for a white guy) of Minnetonka may experience little "white privilege", but he is white and has "everything going for himself" if you listen to what people say about him/his type, but the reality is completely different from the stereotype/typecast, and he struggles in life.

It's important to understand that white privilege != freedom from suffering. Lots of white people struggle and suffer immensely. That does not mean they don't have privilege. It's simply true that as a white person I find certain things easier to do in our society because our society was set up by and continues to focus its efforts on white people.

Again, saying white privilege exists isn't saying that white people are evil or should be ashamed. It's simple acknowlegement of the dynamics of race in our society.

I too get irritated by people who only seem to want to rant and show how racially conscious they are; I have been guilty of it and will probably be guilty of it in the future. I try to keep in mind that guilt is totally counter-productive in actually crafting and implementing solutions so there is literally no good that comes from shaming others.

I feel like as a society we're just dipping our toes in the pool as far as getting into the complexity of all of this. I'm heartened that we're making the progress we are, though. I feel like there's much more conscious awareness of race and understanding that yes, we have to acknowledge and confront it. I find this is particularly true among young people. Millennials are some of my favorite people.

[mplsjaromir]

I cannot agree with assertions that Johnathan Chait makes about political correctness. Writers like him have felt the squeeze from "the left" about their writing and have written lengthy responses about how their ideas are challenged, blaming overreacting liberals. Many have speculated that this has stemmed from the events that happened at The New Republic, a magazine in which he was senior editor.

(For those who have not followed the most boring scandal ever it goes like this: Facebook thirty something buys money losing vanity magazine and fires its editor Franklin Foer and its literary editor Leon Wieseltier. Many resign in protest, and more including Chait ask to be moved from TNR's masthead. The following days people look back on the work of TNR and see it to be racist and warmongering. Upset with the knowledge that we live in an age where anyone can see what you have written and call you out on it, Chait pens his op-ed.)

Chait writes 4700 words and gives one example of someone actually losing a job over political correctness. A few more examples about how certain commencement speakers should not be given $ five figure fees.

People should have the right to speak their mind. The reality is that speaking truth to power is always more dangerous than voicing defense of marginalized groups. For example Steven Salaita. Speaking against authoritarian figures is exponentially more dangerous than propagating injustice for example questioning the intelligence of an entire group of people based on their skin color or cheerleading a disastrous war that claims the lives of hundreds of thousands.

Even this website's most infamous character, who was a merely fake authoritarian, threatened retribution against those who spoke against him.

Via SSC:

The likes of Nick and Didier are those who are typically jealous of people who actually are involved and also prefer to do their work quietly without publicity. Nick, Didier and a few others on urbanmsp clearly have a inferiority complex, the small man mentality, nobody status in other words. A complete lack of professionalism, dignity, integrity and of high standards. June, you are well aware of how I operate, I always put my own money upfront. Since January 2012 when I came out of full retirement to assist developers with their projects, I have personally absorbed the costs to see that the comprehensive plan is executed, which is far greater than any single person on urbanmsp will earn in their lifetime. What I find rather humorous is that I recognize no less than 5 posters on urbanmsp have applied for positions at my corporate office, and likely many more at other entities that I own that they simply didn't know that I owned.

The above quoted post is absolutely hilarious in light of recent illuminations of the truth.

The idea that white people speak to other white people about white privilege and the plight of African Americans is only some type of merit badge is an unfair malign. Not listening to black people as a white person might literally be the easiest thing to do in America. Our society has made that very clear. A dialogue can be helpful, even if it only causes a momentary reflection. Being prodded to grapple with his own preconceived reality was something Johnathan Chait felt very uncomfortable doing, he tried using his writing skill to tell the everyone to quit doing so, luckily most did not.

[Nick]

Will get back to this at the end of the day I'm sure, but the point I was trying to make was more along these lines.

[Anondson]

^ That.

[Snelbian]

In the same way that some turn off when they see "white privilege" and the like, I stop reading when people start using "political correctness" unironically.

[Silophant]

Will get back to this at the end of the day I'm sure, but the point I was trying to make was more along these lines.

^That. I mean, that's basically why I got Cs in my Theatre History classes at the U, for never, ever participating in discussions.

[Realstreets]

Will get back to this at the end of the day I'm sure, but the point I was trying to make was more along these lines.

I actually read this before reading Chait's article and completed sided with this guy (and Chait). I'm not familiar with Chait's entire back catalog but to me he's not a jerk or a-hole for writing the article. He's completely right that it stifles debate. The social justice warriors while completely noble in their cause, need to do a better job of identifying overt racism and hatred from other forms, like institutional racism. If neonazis are marching down the street, they deserve ridicule and public shaming. However, when someone lacks an understanding of the struggles of blacks in MPLS or hold stereotypical views of them, they shouldn't be lambasted as the second coming of David Duke.

These conversation about race and PC-things also mirrors the ongoing spat between Glen Greenwald/Reza Aslan and Sam Harris.

[mulad]

Speaking the same language, yet not speaking the same language. I think my favorite is "pants".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... %E2%80%93L
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_w ... %E2%80%93Z

[Snelbian]

Off-topic, but as I read it, that spat is more about Harris championing a literal war on particular kinds of, in essence, thought crimes. Which is ironic given how he's framing the Greenwald (who is, admittedly, an absolute ass) and Aslan response.

[mplsjaromir]

I could have seen a Freddie DeBoer rebuttal from a mile away.

They don't have the right to engage in the way they see fit, because you know the correct way to properly communicate.

People say things on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, whatever, that may be needlessly hostile or counter productive. I do not think that is indicative of an entire spectrum of thought.

[LakeCharles]

I read the piece Nick posted, enjoyed it, and also enjoyed this response to that response (the blogosphere is neverending):

https://thehandsomecamel.wordpress.com/ ... rals-back/

Edit: MplsJaromir beat me to it, but it's the same premise. Dozens of unnecessary browbeatings is bad. But weighed against the hundreds of times these types of conversations have been helpful, is it a net negative? I'd say no.